2 small crankshafts will have the same weight as a large one
if a gear unit with only one output gear and 2 input gear is required on the 2 crankshafts, this gear unit will even be slightly lighter than a simple gear unit
of course if there is no need for a reduction the transmission between the 2 crankshafts which is a loss: but lighter than the big connecting rods!
for a helicopter there is necessarily a need for reduction
I see a small helicopter with a gasoline engine like lycoming with a flat cylinder with a transmission by trapezoidal belt to make a first reduction between the engine and the gear reducer ... bad example not to follow
Helicopter with diesel engine (ecomotors)
- chatelot16
- Econologue expert
- posts: 6960
- Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
- Location: Angouleme
- x 264
chatelot16 wrote:2 crankshaft means 2 crankshaft passing each half of the rain so 2 times lighter: total weight not heavier ...
I am not sure that a vilo which passes 2 times less power is 2 times less heavy but in this case necessarily 4 bearings therefore frottemments more important and 2 parts which turn instead of one and synchro system in more. .
In the case of the OPOC engine, I don't see how you would train the middle pistons with only 2 exterior vilos without going through large connecting rods.
0 x
To argue.
- chatelot16
- Econologue expert
- posts: 6960
- Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
- Location: Angouleme
- x 264
oiseautempete wrote:Example of a Detroit 2-stroke diesel truck: we don't usually hear that in France! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnN1i9Lj ... re=related
The noise is nice, it looks like a large US container. By cons the number of speed is impressive (15?). Another oddity, it makes a lot of noise but it does not advance
For the Ecomotor it is true that it is "rod"
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
- chatelot16
- Econologue expert
- posts: 6960
- Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
- Location: Angouleme
- x 264
detroit diesel I've seen and heard in the "Michigan" or Richier wheel loaders or timberjack forestry tractors
it is quite slow engine but as it is 2 stroke it makes a noise 2 times faster ...
intake by light, exhaust by valve (often 4 valve per cylinder): I find it a shame we keep the main disadvantage of the 4 stroke: the weak point of the exhaust valves
it is quite slow engine but as it is 2 stroke it makes a noise 2 times faster ...
intake by light, exhaust by valve (often 4 valve per cylinder): I find it a shame we keep the main disadvantage of the 4 stroke: the weak point of the exhaust valves
0 x
-
- Grand Econologue
- posts: 848
- Registration: 19/11/09, 13:24
Flytox wrote:
The noise is nice, it looks like a large US container. By cons the number of speed is impressive (15?). Another oddity, it makes a lot of noise but it does not advance
it included short reports, I think just for the demo, because we only use them when loaded or on steep slopes ... (just like on 4x4s and HGVs from us)
It is certainly not violent but 62 mph = 100km / h which is correct for an old truck ... In the USA 2-stroke diesel are common (up to 900hp on recent road and agricultural tractors!) While in Europe is rare (old equipment only) because too noisy and polluting ...
0 x
- chatelot16
- Econologue expert
- posts: 6960
- Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
- Location: Angouleme
- x 264
Aumicron wrote:I am not sure that a vilo which passes 2 times less power is 2 times less heavy but in this case necessarily 4 bearings therefore frottemments more important and 2 parts which turn instead of one and synchro system in more. .
I'm sure
and even more: the central crankshaft of the opoc engine has too much connecting rod, it forces to make bearings not wide enough therefore of larger diameter to have the right surface: it increases friction
smaller crankshafts with less connecting rods will have smaller diameter bearings, therefore less friction
0 x
-
- Grand Econologue
- posts: 848
- Registration: 19/11/09, 13:24
[quote = "chatelot16] I'm sure
and even more: the central crankshaft of the opoc engine has too much connecting rod, it forces to make bearings not wide enough therefore of larger diameter to have the right surface: it increases friction
smaller crankshafts with less connecting rods will have smaller diameter bearings, therefore less friction [/ quote]
well you're twisted: you forget the safety coefficients which impose to build the parts much more solid than theoretically necessary, suddenly 2 crankshafts will necessarily be much heavier than one (with a ladle at least + 30%), with good more friction, more the engine block will also have to be much more solid because at the level of the crankshafts the torsional forces are enormous.
No need to go far: the Junkers diesel engines were very heavy for aircraft engines, much heavier than the Clergets, moreover the crankshaft of a star engine is very short (same as single cylinder) which allows, despite the large counterweight, to be lighter than an online engine crankshaft, that's why besides that despite a theoretical advantage level performance of the Junkers with opposed pistons, in reality its specific consumption does not was no better than that of the Clerget due to mechanical losses and a higher mass (additional weight = reduced carrying capacity for the aircraft, or / and increased consumption) ...
and even more: the central crankshaft of the opoc engine has too much connecting rod, it forces to make bearings not wide enough therefore of larger diameter to have the right surface: it increases friction
smaller crankshafts with less connecting rods will have smaller diameter bearings, therefore less friction [/ quote]
well you're twisted: you forget the safety coefficients which impose to build the parts much more solid than theoretically necessary, suddenly 2 crankshafts will necessarily be much heavier than one (with a ladle at least + 30%), with good more friction, more the engine block will also have to be much more solid because at the level of the crankshafts the torsional forces are enormous.
No need to go far: the Junkers diesel engines were very heavy for aircraft engines, much heavier than the Clergets, moreover the crankshaft of a star engine is very short (same as single cylinder) which allows, despite the large counterweight, to be lighter than an online engine crankshaft, that's why besides that despite a theoretical advantage level performance of the Junkers with opposed pistons, in reality its specific consumption does not was no better than that of the Clerget due to mechanical losses and a higher mass (additional weight = reduced carrying capacity for the aircraft, or / and increased consumption) ...
0 x
- chatelot16
- Econologue expert
- posts: 6960
- Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
- Location: Angouleme
- x 264
for the comparison between one and two vilbrequi online I do not worry
but obviously the star engine has a huge superiority on the inline engine for the weight of the crankshaft
but I do not think that the superiority of the clergy over the junker is due to the star shape or even to the choice of 4-stroke instead of 2-stroke: I think of a superiority on the spraying of diesel which allows it to turn faster
I don't know how the injectors of the airplane junker were made, but on the clm junker license that I have at home it's injectors without needles: it works rather on the principle of the aerosol spray nozzle: arrived tangential for swirl out through the central hole
my junker engine miserably fouls the exhaust lights and it smokes a lot, I mounted one in a generator: the first time I tried it at full power, it rained red glowing particles for 1/4 time to burn all the carbon accumulated in the exhaust
these engines must not run at more than 1000 rpm otherwise combustion has no time to take place in the cylinder: with better injection, the mechanics of these engines would be able to run much faster
the clamming of clm engines is not only at home: an old mechanic specializing in clm compressors, told me that it was necessary to regularly open the access hatches provided for and scraping with a brass tool so as not to risk damage the edge of the lights
but obviously the star engine has a huge superiority on the inline engine for the weight of the crankshaft
but I do not think that the superiority of the clergy over the junker is due to the star shape or even to the choice of 4-stroke instead of 2-stroke: I think of a superiority on the spraying of diesel which allows it to turn faster
I don't know how the injectors of the airplane junker were made, but on the clm junker license that I have at home it's injectors without needles: it works rather on the principle of the aerosol spray nozzle: arrived tangential for swirl out through the central hole
my junker engine miserably fouls the exhaust lights and it smokes a lot, I mounted one in a generator: the first time I tried it at full power, it rained red glowing particles for 1/4 time to burn all the carbon accumulated in the exhaust
these engines must not run at more than 1000 rpm otherwise combustion has no time to take place in the cylinder: with better injection, the mechanics of these engines would be able to run much faster
the clamming of clm engines is not only at home: an old mechanic specializing in clm compressors, told me that it was necessary to regularly open the access hatches provided for and scraping with a brass tool so as not to risk damage the edge of the lights
0 x
2-stroke diesel
http://ppdgemini.com/
they will present a 70 hp in 2011 not certified for the European ULM market at the end of 2011, it is being tested, source Dereck Graham director Gemini
they will present a 70 hp in 2011 not certified for the European ULM market at the end of 2011, it is being tested, source Dereck Graham director Gemini
0 x
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 152 Replies
- 24660 views
-
Last message by NCSH
View the latest post
04/02/24, 23:25A subject posted in the forum : New transport: innovations, engines, pollution, technologies, policies, organization ...
Back to "New transport: innovations, engines, pollution, technologies, policies, organization ..."
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 143 guests